0
Research Papers

# Analysis of Turbulent Scalar Flux Models for a Discrete Hole Film Cooling Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Julia Ling

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: julial@stanford.edu

Kevin J. Ryan, John K. Eaton

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305

Julien Bodart

ISAE,
University of Toulouse,
Toulouse 31400, France

1J. Ling is currently at Sandia National Labs.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 20, 2015; final manuscript received September 8, 2015; published online October 21, 2015. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(1), 011006 (Oct 21, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1182; doi: 10.1115/1.4031698 History: Received August 20, 2015; Revised September 08, 2015

## Abstract

Algebraic closures for the turbulent scalar fluxes were evaluated for a discrete hole film cooling geometry using the results from a high-fidelity large eddy simulation (LES). Several models for the turbulent scalar fluxes exist, including the widely used gradient diffusion hypothesis (GDH), the generalized GDH (GGDH), and the higher-order GDH (HOGGDH). By analyzing the results from the LES, it was possible to isolate the error due to these turbulent mixing models. Distributions of the turbulent diffusivity, turbulent viscosity, and turbulent Prandtl number were extracted from the LES results. It was shown that the turbulent Prandtl number varies significantly spatially, undermining the applicability of the Reynolds analogy for this flow. The LES velocity field and Reynolds stresses were fed into a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) solver to calculate the fluid temperature distribution. This analysis revealed in which regions of the flow various modeling assumptions were invalid and what effect those assumptions had on the predicted temperature distribution.

<>

## References

Corrsin, S. , 1974, “ Limitations of Gradient Transport Models in Random Walks and in Turbulence,” Adv. Geophys., 18, pp. 25–60.
Ling, J. , Elkins, C. , and Eaton, J. , 2014, “ Optimal Turbulent Schmidt Number for RANS Modeling of Trailing Edge Slot Film Cooling,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 137(7), p. 072605.
He, G. , Guo, Y. , and Hsu, A. , 1999, “ The Effect of Schmidt Number of Turbulent Scalar Mixing in a Jet-in-Crossflow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 42(20), pp. 3727–3738.
Kohli, A. , and Bogard, D. , 2005, “ Turbulent Transport in Film Cooling Flows,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 127(5), pp. 513–520.
Lakehal, D. , 2002, “ Near-Wall Modeling of Turbulent Convective Heat Transport in Film Cooling of Turbine Blades With the Aid of Direct Numerical Simulation Data,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(3), pp. 485–498.
Liu, C. , Zhu, H. , and Bai, J. , 2008, “ Effect of Turbulent Prandtl Number on the Computation of Film Cooling Effectiveness,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 51, pp. 6208–6218.
Liu, C. , Zhu, H. , and Bai, J. , 2011, “ New Development of the Turbulent Prandtl Number Models for the Computation of Film Cooling Effectiveness,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 54(4), pp. 874–886.
Kaszeta, R. , and Simon, T. , 2000, “ Measurement of Eddy Diffusivity of Momentum in Film Cooling Flows With Streamwise Injection,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(1), pp. 178–183.
Bergeles, G. , Gosman, A. , and Launder, B. , 1978, “ The Turbulent Jet in a Cross Stream at Low Injection Rates: A Three-Dimensional Numerical Treatment,” Numer. Heat Transfer, 1(2), pp. 217–242.
Daly, B. , and Harlow, F. , 1970, “ Transport Equations in Turbulence,” Phys. Fluids, 13(11), pp. 2634–2649.
Abe, K. , and Suga, K. , 2001, “ Towards the Development of a Reynolds-Averaged Algebraic Turbulent Scalar-Flux Model,” J. Heat Fluid Flow, 22(1), pp. 19–29.
Gorle, C. , Emory, M. , and Iaccarino, G. , 2011, “ Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification of RANS Modeling for an Underexpanded Jet in a Supersonic Crossflow,” CTR Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Gorle, C. , Emory, M. , and Iaccarino, G. , 2012, “ RANS Modeling of Turbulent Mixing for a Jet in Supersonic Crossflow: Model Evaluation and Uncertainty Quantification,” Seventh International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer (THMT-12), Palermo, Italy, Sept. 24–27.
Xueying, L. , Yanmin, Q. , Jing, R. , and Hongde, J. , 2013, “ Algebraic Anisotropic Turbulence Modeling of Compound Angled Film Cooling Validated by PIV and PSP Measurements,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-994662.
Rajabi-Zargarabadi, M. , and Bazdidi-Tehrani, F. , 2010, “ Implicit Algebraic Model for Predicting Turbulent Heat Flux,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 64(5), pp. 517–531.
Azzi, A. , and Lakehal, D. , 2002, “ Perspectives in Modeling Film Cooling of Turbine Blades by Transcending Conventional Two-Equation Turbulence Models,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(3), pp. 472–484.
Bodart, J. , Coletti, F. , Moreno, I. B. , and Eaton, J. , 2013, High-Fidelity Simulation of a Turbulent Inclined Jet in a Crossflow, CTR Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Coletti, F. , Elkins, C. , and Eaton, J. , 2012, “ Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Flow and Scalar Transport in a Inclined Jet in Crossflow,” 7th International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Seventh International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer (THMT-12), Palermo, Italy, Sept. 24–27.
Coletti, F. , Benson, M. , Ling, J. , Elkins, C. , and Eaton, J. , 2013, “ Turbulent Transport in an Inclined Jet in Crossflow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 43, pp. 149–160.
Ling, J. , Rossi, R. , and Eaton, J. , 2015, “ Near Wall Modeling for Trailing Edge Slot Film Cooling,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(2), p. 021103.
Ling, J. , Coletti, F. , Yapa, S. , and Eaton, J. , 2013, “ Experimentally Informed Optimization of Turbulent Diffusivity for a Discrete Hole Film Cooling Geometry,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 44, pp. 348–357.

## Figures

Fig. 1

Schematic of flow configuration. (a) Flow configuration with contours of θ¯. Coolant plenum and injection hole shown. (b) Comparison of LES and experimental results in near-injection region. Color contours of θ shown on the channel center-plane, as measured by Coletti et al. Corresponding isocontour lines from LES shown in black. (c) RANS domain. Zoomed-in section of mesh shown in region near hole exit. Isosurface of θ¯ = 0.01 also shown for reference.

Fig. 2

Contours of νt,LES/(UbD), αt,LES/(UbD), and Prt,LES in streamwise slices spaced 4D apart. The contours of αt,LES/(UbD) and Prt,LES are blanked in regions where D|∇θ¯|<0.1. Isosurface of θ¯=0.01 shown for reference. (a) νt,LES/(UbD). (b) αt,LES/(UbD).

Fig. 3

Contours of ϕ, the angle between the turbulent scalar fluxes predicted using algebraic closures and the LES turbulent scalar fluxes. Units are in radians. The slices are spaced 4d apart, and are blanked in regions where θ¯<0.01 or D|∇θ¯|<0.1. Isosurface of θ¯=0.01 shown for reference. (a) GDH; (b) GGDH; and (c) HOGGDH.

Fig. 4

Contours of θ¯ in streamwise slices spaced 4d apart from LES and RANS. Isosurface of θ¯=0.01 shown for reference. (a) LES. (b) Case 1: GDH with αt = αt,LES. (c) Case 2: GDH with Prt = 0.85. (d) Case 3: GDH with Prt = 0.6$. (e) Case 4: HOGGDH with CHODDGH = 0.6$. (f) Case 5: HOGGDH with CHODDGH = 1.5.

Fig. 5

Contours of η on the bottom wall. The region depicted extends 30D downstream of injection, and 2D on either side of the centerline. (a) LES. (b) Case 1: GDH with αt = αt,LES. (c) Case 2: GDH with Prt = 0.85. (d) Case 3: GDH with Prt = 0.6. (e) Case 4: HOGGDH with CHOGGDH = 0.6. (f) Case 5: HOGGDH with CHOGGDH = 1.5.

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections